Pages

Friday, February 22, 2013

Let’s keep the military cuts in the sequester but not the cuts to social services

By Marc Jampole

February’s
crisis of the month is the looming “sequester,” which will automatically make
deep cuts in government programs unless Congress gets its act together and
passes an alternative fiscal plan by March 1. As
usual when it comes to money issues, Democrats and Republicans are at an
impasse on how to avoid the sequester. Democrats want to replace it with a mix
of tax increases and program cuts. Republicans want government services such as
air traffic controller staffs, food stamps and health programs for children to
take the brunt of program cuts, with no cut to military spending and no
increase in taxes.Both
sides have it wrong. If the concern is to help the economy recover, we should
raise taxes on the wealthy and not cut any programs.The government will spend every penny it
gets, which will pump up the economy. True enough, poor people and much of the
middle class support the economy by spending most of the money that they don’t
pay in taxes on goods and services. History demonstrates, however, that the
wealthy will invest much of their tax savings in ways that do not help the
economy, for example in stocks on the secondary market (which means the company
that originally issued the stock gets nothing) and overpriced art work.That’s why we should raise taxes on the
wealthy only.I
agree with Paul Krugman, who in many of his New
York Times articles over the past months has made the case that addressing
the deficit can wait until the country has stabilized the economy. But if we do
want to address the deficit right now, we should do it by addressing the two
reasons why it is too large: war-time military spending and the Bush II reduction
of taxes on the wealthy.That means
raising taxes and cutting the military, but not other programs.When
thinking about cuts in government spending, ask yourself these questions:

Would you rather see children in the United States have enough to eat or the U.S. stay in the senseless, objectiveless war in Afghanistan?

Would you rather
repair bridges and put decent mass transit into our mid-sized cities or
continue developing drone technology?

Would you rather
see us work on green energies or develop that new-fangled aircraft that
Congress is insisting be built even though our military leaders say we don’t
need it?

Would you rather
cut our nuclear program (which can destroy all known civilization many times
over) or cut air traffic controllers and slow down the takeoff and landing of
all flights across the country.

I
vote for children with full bellies, bridges that don’t fall down, research
that addresses global warming (as opposed to research that kills people) and
getting to my destination on time.That’s
why I advocate that we replace the sequester with a mix of tax increases and
cuts only in military spending.

If it weren’t for the entertainment value, I’d be pleased that Texas Governor Rick Perry is foundering in the Republican presidential race. After all, Governor Perry, who is in an unprecedented fourth term as chief executive of the nation's second-largest state, still might get the Republican nomination for president. If that happens there’s no telling what the voters might be fooled into doing. Just look at how far George W. Bush got.